N.Y. judge backs Apple in encryption fight with government

[Contumacious]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W22Q0
N.Y. judge backs Apple in encryption fight with government

(Reuters) - The U.S. government cannot force Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to unlock an iPhone in a New York drug case, a federal judge in Brooklyn said on Monday, a ruling that bolsters the company's arguments in its landmark legal showdown with the Justice Department over encryption and privacy.

I celebrate the ruling because it recognizes that Apple customers have a right to privacy and Apple must not be conscripted to assist "law" enforcement.


.

 

[Contumacious]

His ruling echoed many of the arguments that Apple has made in the San Bernardino case, particularly his finding that a 1789 law called the All Writs Act cannot be used to force Apple to open the phone. Orenstein also found that Apple was largely exempt from complying with such requests by a 1994 law that updated wiretapping laws.

 

[Contumacious]

A senior Apple executive, who spoke on condition he not be named, said during a call with reporters that Orenstein's decision would bode well for the company in the San Bernardino case, which has touched off a fierce national debate about the balance between fighting crime and preserving privacy in the digital age.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

 

[Contumacious]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Have they given the Chinese government an encryption backdoor?


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Have they given the Chinese government an encryption backdoor?


.

Have the Chinese demanded one?

 

[Contumacious]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Have they given the Chinese government an encryption backdoor?


.

Have the Chinese demanded one?

Yes it has.

But Apple hasn't given an inch,


So what did Apple do?

Consider the hysteria surrounding Edward Snowden’s claims in 2013 that U.S. tech companies, including Apple, allowed governments “backdoors” into their operating systems, thus allowing them to spy on users and access private data stored on devices. Apple CEO Tim Cook shrieked from the mountaintops that no government had any backdoor into its products or services—and never would. Beijing, engaged in an escalating cyberwar with the U.S., wasn’t going to take his word for it. So, according to Chinese state media accounts and technology executives in China, it told Apple it needed to do a “security audit” on its products. A year ago, it did so, and it's never been clear whether there were any ramifications from the audit. Apple has continued to sell iPhones and all its other products without incident.

 

[OKTexas]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

 

[NYcarbineer]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"N.Y. judge backs Apple in encryption fight with government"

...in a case completely unrelated to the San Bernidino case, having no bearing whatsoever in the merits of that case.

 

[Contumacious]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

What about the "circumstances"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

What about the "circumstances"?

It's a terrorist's phone dumbass.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you REALIZE that you have no idea what the hell you are bleating about, or are you just stupid?

 

[Skylar]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Oh, the FBI has unquestioning authority to search the phone.

What they lack is the ability to.

 

[OKTexas]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Oh, the FBI has unquestioning authority to search the phone.

What they lack is the ability to.

They only lack the ability because Apple is actively obstructing justice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.